I'm also reflecting on a liberal America where conservative thinkers are busy "debunking" liberalism by pointing out that the spectrum of human wisdom coming from gays, communists, black nationalists, maoists, pacifists, latinos, muslims, democrats, yankees, damn yankees, carpetbaggers, socialists, leftists, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, The News Network, ABC, NBC, and folks who sit in the same room with Bill Ayers is perverted, ill-advised, scary, and will cause the destruction of America.
Let's see.... If I were to convert to conservatism, from whom would I need to ask permission concerning what I should read, or how I should think? Who would be able to "cleanse" my mind of it's "unclean" passion for knowledge and human wisdom? How would I be able to protect myself from all the above mentioned villians who are fighting for my soul?
This tome is inspired by an interesting op-ed in the Daily News-Record this morning disparaging Ann Dunn for her remarks concerning her "favorite" philosophers, Mao and Mother Theresa. (Her actual words: "two of my favorite philosophers.") Que the horns, whistles, and outrage from WingNut World. Let's see... set up a Strawman Argument:
Question: What would have happened to an official in the Bush Administration if he had said that Adolf Hitler was one of his favorite philosophers?
Now give the answer:
Answer: The remark would not be excused because the official claimed he was using irony. He’d either be fired or forced to resign.
Now lets use that strawman argument to say that Ms Dunn (the editor refers to her as "Madame Dunn" - we'll try and ignore the reference to prostitution) should be fired for saying the Chairman Mao and Mother Theresa were two of her "favorite philosophers" whom she quoted to make a point.
You don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don’t have to follow other people’s choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path.
She quoted two famous, historical figures to make the point that conventional wisdom should not be the guiding light for deciding what to do in life. She found these passages to be enlightening and respected the lives of Mao and Mother Theresa enough to be able to glean these "truths" from their writings. The editor, of course, has a different take. Since guilt by association along with the above strawman argument are essential to the "debunking" process, he goes all in:
Given that Mr. Obama’s appointees seem to be a cadre of communists who admire Chairman Mao and other murderers, as well as his own predilection for redistributing wealth and his nationalization of the American economy, one wonders what the future of the Republic might be.
How long will it be before Americans learn to quote Chairman Mao, that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun?”
The editor once again has seemingly enjoyed his foray into the depths of paranoia using logical fallicies, and puritanistic partisanship to attempt a smear at his political opposites. His final comment gives me pause... I'm thinking of the tea party activists who carried loaded weapons to President Obama's speeches. I'm also reminded of WingNut heros, Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh, all of whom embraced the idea of spilling the blood of patriots to cleanse the tree of liberty. Does the editor understand irony?
To use the editor's own logic, shouldn't a newspaper editor who accuses the President of the United States of condoning murder and espousing Communism be summarily fired? What use to society are perverted rantings like this? Shouldn't a newspaper editor who even inadvertently espouses the point of view of domestic terrorists be summarily dismissed?